administered as a means for homogenizing the participants was first given to 30 participants with almost the same characteristics of the target group for the piloting phase. Table 4.1 provides the descriptive statistics of piloting the KET.

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test piloting
Descriptive Statistics

N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Variance
KET-Total
Valid N (listwise)
30
17.00
28.00
21.9667
3.04544
9.275

30

The researcher felt safe in employing the above piloted test for the subject selection process. Following the piloting, the KET was administered to90 students with the aim of selecting 60 of them for the study. The descriptive statistics of this process are presented below in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test
Descriptive Statistics

N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Score
90
27.000000
53.000000
44.11111111
4.911450607
Valid N (listwise)
90

Item analysis was run on this test and the results showed that none of the items needed to be revised or changed. Hence, the reliability was calculated. Table 4.2 reports the reliability estimate of the piloting (an acceptable Cronbach’s Alpha Index of .775.).

Table 4.3: Reliability of the KET Proficiency Test Piloting
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha
Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.775
.772
81

4.3. Descriptive Statistics of the KET Main Administration for Homogenization
The sections of the KET test were used to ensure the homogeneity of the two groups in terms of their proficiency level at the outset of the study.

Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics for KET Main Administration for
Homogenization

Descriptive Statistics

N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Variance
Skewness

Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
KET control group
30
9
40
49
44.40
2.931
8.593
-.028
.427
KET experimental group
30
8.00
40.00
48.00
43.8667
2.43159
5.913
.151
.427
Valid N (listwise)
30

Table 4.5: The Results of Normality Check of the Distribution of scores on KET
KET
Skewness Ratio
Experimental group
-.028/.427= -0.06
Control group
.151/.427= .0353

Since the values of skewness/standard error of skewness in both groups were between the range of -1.96 and +1.96, the normality of the distribution of scores was guaranteed.

Figure 4.1: The Histogram of Scores of KET Main Administration

In order to make sure that the two groups were homogeneous regarding their English Language proficiency prior to the treatment an independent sample t-test was conducted between the KET mean scores of the experimental and control groups.

Table 4.6: Independent Sample T-test for Control and Experimental Groups’ KET scores

Independent Samples Test

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means

F
Sig.
T
Df
Sig.(2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower
Upper
Equal variances assumed
1.844
.180
.767
58
.446
.533
.695
-.859
1.925

Equal variances not assumed

.767
56.085
.446
.533
.695
-.860
1.926

As depicted in the table, the value of Sig. (2-tailed) (.446) is larger than .05, leading to the fact that the two groups were homogeneous in their language proficiency prior to the treatment.

4.4. Descriptive Statistics of the grammar Pre-test
Among the 90 students who took the test, 60 whose scores fell between one standard deviation above and below the mean were chosen as the participants of this study to be placed in the experimental and control groups. Accordingly, 30 were put in one group and 30 in the other. The descriptive statistics of the two groups appear in the Table 4.6. Below:

Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics for the Results of the Pre-test
Descriptive Statistics for the pre-test

N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Sum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Variance

Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Statistic
Control Group
30
77.50
12.50
90.00
1882.50
62.7500
2.78158
15.23537
232.116
Experimental Group
30
72.50
12.50
85.00
1804.00
60.1333
3.26034
17.85764
318.895

Figure 4.2: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Pre-test of the Control Group

Figure 4.3: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Pre-test of the Experimental Group

Table 4.8: Results of Normality of Distribution of Scores for Grammar Pre-test

Grouping
N
mean
Std. deviation
Std. error mean
Skewness
Kurtosis

statistic
Std. error
statistic
Std. error
Control
30
62.750
15.235
2.781
– 1.028
.578
2.739
.833
experimental
30
60.133
17.857
3.260
– .970
.578
.551
.833

According to the above table and based on the results of dividing statistics to standard error of skewness (-.1.028 / .578= – 1.77) which is a value in the acceptable range of -1.96 and +1.96, the researcher came to the conclusion that the scores on the test of those participants who were grouped as the control group were normally distributed.
The same process was practiced for the scores of experimental learners and the result (-..970 / .578 = – 1.67) was located in the same range and guaranteed the normality of distribution. Now that the researcher was sure about the normality of her sample scores, she was persevered to run the independent samples t-test in order to find out about their homogeneity

Table 4.9: Independent Samples T- Test for Pre-test
Independent Samples Test for the pre-test

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means

F
Sig.
t
Df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower
Upper
Scores
Equal variances assumed
1.061
.307
.611
58
.544
2.61667
4.28568
5.96206
11.19539

Equal variances not assumed

.611
56.596
.544
2.61667
4.28568
5.96659
11.19992

The significance level of Levene’s test in the first line of the table-which refers to equal variances assumed-is larger than .05. In fact, as depicted from the table, the amount of p-value is .544.05. Therefore, the researcher was assured that there was no significant difference regarding grammar knowledge between the two groups prior to the treatment. So it can be claimed that the groups were almost homogeneous in terms of grammar ability with 95% confidence.

Figure 4.4: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Post- test of the Control Group

Figure 4.5: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Post- test of the Experimental Group

Table 4.10: descriptive statistics for the results of the post-test
Descriptive Statistics for the post-test

N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Sum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Variance

Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Statistic
Control Group
30
80.00
20.00
100.00
1771.00
59.0333
3.29236
18.03298
325.189
Experimental Group
30
55.00
45.00
100.00
2170.00
72.3333
3.02986
16.59525
275.402

Table 4.11: Results of Normality of Distribution of Scores for Grammar Post-test
Grouping
N
mean
Std. deviation
Std. error mean
Skewness
Kurtosis

statistic
Std. error
statistic
Std. error
Control
30
59.033
18.032
3.292
– .213
.427
.390
.833
experimental
30
72.333
16.595
3.029
– .034
.427
– .857
.833

According to the above table and based on the results of dividing statistics to standard error of skewness (-.213 / .427 =-0.498) which is a value in the acceptable range of -1.96 and +1.96, the researcher came to the conclusion that the scores on the test of those participants who were grouped as the control group were normally distributed.
The same process was practiced for the scores of experimental learners and the result (-.034 / .427 = – .079) was located in the same range and guaranteed the normality of distribution. Now that the researcher was sure about the normality of her sample scores, she was persevered to run the independent samples t-test in order to find out about their homogeneity.
4.5. The Results of Testing the Null Hypothesis
In order to check the null hypothesis of the study which stated that alternative teaching model does not have a significant effect on EFL learners’ grammar achievement the researcher needed to compare the mean scores of the experimental and control groups of the reading post-test. For this purpose an independent sample t-test was legitimately run, as the distributions of scores for both groups proved to be normal. The subsequent table illustrates the corresponding statistics for the control and experimental groups’ performance on grammar post-test.

Table 4.12: Independent Samples Test for Post-test
Independent Samples Test for the post-test

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means

F
Sig.
T
Df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower
Upper
scores
Equal variances assumed
.005
.942
2.973
58
.004
-13.30000
4.47434
22.25636
4.34364

Equal variances not assumed

2.973
57.604
.004
-13.30000
4.47434
22.25767
4.34233

Considering the

دسته‌ها: No category